Talk:A Matter of Perspective (episode)
Votes from nomination for "A Matter of Perspective" * Self nomination. This was one of my favourite all time TNG episodes. I feel that I've been exhaustive with writing this article without rambling on. I've written up most of the unwritten references as well to supplement the article.--Scimitar 12:30, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC) *'Support' Everything seems to be in order. Tobyk777 22:45, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC) *'Support' It's a very well written summary. Tough Little Ship 23:00, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC) *'Weak Support' For starters, the main table wasn't formatted, and some spelling errors and needless pic sizing. But I cleaned alot of it up, and I think it's better. Something about it is still bothering me though... - AJHalliwell 21:45, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC) ** Well, I'm not sold on this being a unanimous vote. I suggest that if any proposed changes or ideas are had to improve the article that they be made, rather than to let this comment to go on marinating for another 5 days. --Alan del Beccio 19:45, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC) **Spelling errors? Well I'm not apologi's'''ing for being a "limey", AJH. I think you're the one who's made spelling mistakes (e.g. alot). May I ask why you aren't fully satisfied with it, especially bearing in mind that you made a nomination for "Good Shepherd" yet at the time of your nomination, it was so deeply flawed? I'd say that "A Matter of Perspective" is as well written or would your articles be good enough and mine not be?--Scimitar 12:41, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC) ***(In order...) I'm not asking you to, nor am I saying there's a problem with the British spelling of things. Spelling '''was not' the reason I "weak support"ed it, as I said above. I've made many spelling mistakes yes, but at current MA's policy is that of American English when possible. And I'm not sure what I don't like about it, which is why I didn't vote Oppose, as that would be unfair. My earlier mishaps on "Good Shepherd" are unrelated to this vote. I never said anything about you or your writing style in comparison to mine. And in case you didn't notice, I did vote to Support this article's featured status, even if it wasn't an enthusiastic support, it was a support none-the-less. If you have any personal disputes with me, please post them on my talk page, and not on the Featured Articles forums please. - AJHalliwell 01:09, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC) :featured --Alan del Beccio 01:38, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC) The first paragraph of "Act Five" in this summary actually happened in Act Four - Jay Barasch, February 3, 2006, after watching this episode in syndication Nitpicks/plot holes I removed the following nitpicks (or plot holes, same thing). --From Andoria with Love 04:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC) :When the holodeck recreation was destroyed in the simulation, the table and chair that the crew was seated should have been destroyed along with other holographic matter. Also, when the simulation was not in use, the holodeck would have been turned off, which begs the question as to how the Krieger waves managed to damage parts of the ship without people in the holodeck noticing the visible beam from the generator. :Had Riker actually fired a phaser at the reactor onboard the space station, he might have materialized on the ''Enterprise in the same pose as when he fired (even though a handful of exceptional occurrences prove you can indeed move in the transporter, even though normally a person's pose is unchanged in the matter stream). Furthermore, the transporters should have detected that his phaser was in discharge. Given that no discharge was read from his phaser, it should have appeared unlikely he fired it.'' Actually, having removed the above, are nitpicks and plot holes considered the same thing? I think they are basically one and the same (as in someone is nitpicking about a plot hole), but wanted to get clarification about it here. --From Andoria with Love 04:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)